For the
reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this action in
its entirety.

I.
Background

On
December 30, 2016, pro se litigant Robert Spiegel
filed a civil complaint in which he alleges that state court
judges and employees violated his federal rights in the
course of his divorce proceedings in the Norfolk Probate and
Family Court. He names as defendants the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Norfolk Probate and Family Court, four
justices of that court, and three court employees. In an
order dated January 11, 2017 (Docket Entry #6), the Court
directed Spiegel to show cause why his complaint should not
be dismissed based on judicial immunity, the state's
immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, and the Court's
inability to award injunctive relief against a state judicial
officer under the alleged facts of this case. See 42
U.S.C. § 1983.

On May
17, 2017, Spiegel filed a show cause response (Docket Entry
#15), which consists of a four-page single-spaced memorandum
to the Court. He included exhibits concerning his medical
condition, copies of state court orders, and copies of
photographs of electronic devices and storage items that
purportedly relate to his divorce proceedings.[1]

In his
show cause memorandum, Spiegel discusses at length the
emotional, physical, and financial injuries he and his family
have allegedly suffered as a result of the state court
divorce proceedings. He argues that a great injustice would
occur to him and his children should the defendants be able
to avoid liability for their alleged corruption, callousness,
and cruelty.

II.
Discussion

Spiegel's
show cause response is insufficient to overcome the legal
impediments to Spiegel's action that Court identified in
its January 11, 2017 memorandum and order. In his response,
Spiegel argues against the fairness of applying immunity
doctrines to his claims in light of the grievousness of the
defendants' alleged actions and the resulting injuries to
him.

Such
contentions are irrelevant to the Court's consideration
as to whether the relevant immunity doctrines are applicable
to Spiegel's claims. As the Court has already explained,
judges are immune “from liability for damages for acts
committed within their judicial jurisdiction . . . even when
the judge is accused of acting maliciously and
corruptly.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554
(1967). Thus, whether judicial immunity bars a claim for
damages against a judicial officer does not depend on whether
application of the doctrine would work an unfairness, however
great, on the plaintiff. The relevant inquiry is limited to
whether the alleged misconduct occurred outside of the
judge's judicial capacity, see Mireles v. Waco,
502 U.S. 11-12 (1991), or if it was taken in the “clear
absence of all jurisdiction, ” Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (quoting
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 351 (13 Wall.)
(1872)). Because nothing in Spiegel's complaint or show
cause response suggests that the alleged misconduct of the
defendant judicial officers was not judicial in nature or was
taken in “clear absence of all jurisdiction, ”
the plaintiff's claims for damages against the judicial
officers are barred by the doctrine of judicial
immunity.[2]

Similarly,
application of the Eleventh Amendment immunity to the claims
against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not turn on
the specific facts of an individual case but rather on the
legal question of whether the claim asserted against the
state is one for which the state has waived its Eleventh
Amendment immunity or the United States Congress has
abrogated it. In this action, Eleventh Amendment immunity
applies to all of Spiegel's claims against the
Commonwealth.

Finally,
nothing in the show cause response changes the Court's
determination that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the
Court cannot order injunctive relief against the judicial
officers named as defendants in this action.

III.
Conclusion

Accordingly,
for the reasons stated above and in the Court's
memorandum and order of January 11, 2017, the Court orders
that this case be DISMISSED for failure ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.